EU Obligation to Protect its People and the Environment from All Harm caused by Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals

A more protective European approach to endocrine disruptors is long overdue. Read our eight demands to the EU Commission for an EDC-Free future

EDC-Free Europe Statement on EU EDCs Strategy, May 2018.

Why we are concerned

Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are increasing our chances of getting serious and potentially lethal diseases and health disorders as highlighted by experts from the World Health Organization (WHO), scientists from the Endocrine Society, and others. In these reviews of scientific literature, impacts from EDCs have been linked to reproductive and fertility problems such as drastically falling sperm rates, as well as hormone dependent cancers such as breast and prostate cancers. Neurological impairments including autism and IQ loss as well as metabolic changes including obesity and diabetes have also been associated with exposures to EDCs. In wildlife, there is further evidence of reproductive and developmental harm linked to impairments in endocrine function in a number of wildlife species: EDCs have been associated with changes in immunity and behaviour as well as skeletal deformities.

A growing body of science underpins the ways in which some people are more vulnerable than others to the health impacts of endocrine disruption, even in small doses, with effects sometimes appearing decades later. The time during development in the womb and during early childhood has been found to be a particularly sensitive window of exposure and has raised serious concerns among health professionals. In 2015 over 100 national societies of obstetricians and gynaecologists from around the world called on policymakers to prioritise reducing exposures as an important means of disease prevention.

Avoiding EDCs is not a choice that a person can make anymore. EDCs are found everywhere in our daily lives: from high-profile substances, such as the bisphenols used in the making of certain plastic bottles and can linings, and restricted phthalates that are still found in one out of five toys; the flame retardants used in sofas; the pesticides sprayed on and ending up in our food; and the antimicrobial biocides found in cleaning products. They are nearly everywhere, both at home and in the workplace. The nonprofit research institute the Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX) lists over 1,400 potential EDCs, the WHO mentions over 800 EDCs, and many more suspected EDCs still need to be investigated.

EDCs end up in all of us – children and adults alike – contaminating our bodies without our consent or knowledge. Human biomonitoring samples of urine, hair and blood across Europe are starting to demonstrate the extent of that internal pollution. In France, over 20 EDCs were found in women tested for the presence of these chemicals in 2015. The European Biomonitoring Initiative has included many EDCs and potential EDCs in its priority list and the results will be used to inform policy decisions on specific substances.

Most importantly, EU laws regulating EDCs are not protecting us – the ones that are supposed to do so are patchy, not properly implemented and leave huge gaps where EDCs are not regulated at all such as in cosmetics, toys, textiles, furniture and food packaging and in other articles that we come into contact with every day.

What we want

In 2017 the EU Commission committed to bring out a new integrated strategy on EDCs which is supposed to cover ´for example toys, cosmetics and food packaging´. Previous attempts to update the existing EU Community Strategy on EDCs from 1999 with recent scientific advances and actions to tackle the problem was derailed by intense industry lobby in 2013 as documented by the investigation ‘Toxic Affair’.

We are calling on EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker to bring out a fully-fledged strategy before the summer of 2018. This would include a concrete action plan aiming for a high level of protection for human health, especially vulnerable groups, and the environment. Tangible activities should have clear targets, a timeline and a reasonable budget. This would be an opportunity for reconnecting the EU’s agenda with citizens’ demands for better public health protection on EDCs as illustrated by widely supported petitions developed and supported by the EDC-Free campaign partners in 2017. The first one was delivered to member states with almost half a million signatures in July, and the second one with over 300,000 signatures in October.

An EU EDC strategy could also support and build on efforts by progressive countries, such as France, Sweden and Denmark, which are already implementing actions on EDCs. Belgium has just announced the launch of a national action plan on EDCs. It should be in the interest of the European Commission to promote harmonisation when it leads to an equal and high level of protection for all EU citizens, and supports the avoidance of barriers to trade within the European single market. Today, a clear EU commitment is needed to reduce people`s exposure to EDCs in a more comprehensive way throughout Europe.

This is not only a unique opportunity to increase well-being by preventing diseases, but it can also contribute to reducing the rising costs associated with EDC-related illnesses, as showed by a study evaluating the bill at a staggering 163 billion Euros a year for Europe, even though its scope covered only a few, rather than all, EDC-related illnesses. This is also an opportunity for policy coherence and for the EU to set a regulatory framework that builds the foundations for a truly non-toxic circular economy by encouraging industrial innovation through safer substitution. Considering that our exposure to preventable environmental chemicals is estimated to result in health costs worth 10% of global GDP, there is a real business case for promoting safe substitution to toxic EDCs through a comprehensive EU strategy for action.

We need a comprehensive action plan that effectively prevents further impacts on health and ends wildlife loss associated with EDCs. It needs to set out legal actions for eliminating exposure and to contribute towards meeting the 2030 commitments set out in the Sustainable Development Goals to “substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water, and soil pollution and contamination“.

The EU EDC Strategy must reflect the most recent advances in science and draw the logical conclusions from them by complementing existing obligations in the EU regulatory context. The following identifies the eight crucial elements that the EDC strategy needs to include to enable the EU to effectively protect health and the environment against EDCs.

Essential elements of an EU Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals Strategy

  1. Consider public health and precaution as the cornerstones of a new EU EDC Strategy
    Protect those who are most vulnerable. Reduce exposures to children to prevent suffering from EDC-related diseases and the spiralling costs associated with treating them. Build on and expand the short-, medium- and long-term actions from the 1999 EU EDC strategy and augment their effectiveness.
  2. Enhance public awareness of EDCs – connect it with the EU’s work on protecting citizen’s health
    A recent Eurobarometer survey found that two out of three European citizens are concerned about exposure to chemicals in their daily lives through food, air, drinking water and consumer products or other items, as well as in the workplace. Less than half of the same group felt well informed about the potential dangers of chemicals. A Europe-wide campaign to raise awareness on EDCs is needed.
    Specific focuses of such a campaign should include:

    • Informing parents before and during pregnancy, and families in general, about ways to minimise exposures in everyday life.
    • The dissemination of good practice for exposure reductions and health advice connected to grassroots and local agendas and the creation of a bank of success stories showing how the EU is making a difference.
    • Information and training materials for medical, health and educational professionals and multiplier groups so that they can advise the public on reducing their exposures.
    • A response to consumers’ concerns and the provision of tools for traceability and the right to know for chemicals in products.
  3. Improve regulation: Increase the control of the use of EDCs across all sectors
    • Make a plan with timetables to implement suitable EDC criteria in all relevant EU laws to identify and reduce exposures to EDCs.
    • Address missed deadlines first, like the 2015 one for cosmetics and obvious loopholes like toys, food packaging regulations. Commit to addressing other relevant EU legislation and sources of exposure, such as public procurement, worker’s exposure, textiles, etc. and deliver on the 7th EAP commitment.
    • Support the implementation of the EU Plastics Strategy by banning the presence of EDCs in plastics in particular as the presence of EDCs can hinder recyclability and negatively affect the value of recyclates.
    • EDCs should be regulated with the presumption that no safe threshold for exposure can be set with sufficient certainty.
    • EDCs should be regulated by using group approaches based on similar structures and similar properties to avoid regrettable substitution.
    • Implement and enforce, efficiently and ambitiously, the existing regulatory obligations controlling the use of EDCs. This includes speeding up the inclusion of EDCs in the REACH candidate list of substances of very high concern and the adoption of measures to limit exposure, such as REACH restrictions or REACH authorisation. Currently only 12 substances have been identified as EDCs under REACH.
    • Accelerate the assessment of EDCs to implement restrictions on them in pesticides and biocides.
    • Create new sectorial laws to ensure robust protection in priority for consumer products. For most consumer products, e.g. textiles, child care articles, plastics there is no specific provision addressing EDCs.
  4. Reduce our EDC daily cocktail: Replace the substance-by-substance approach by including all possible sources of exposure to multiple chemicals
    • Prioritise the identification and regulation of the most problematic groups of hormone disrupting chemicals and swiftly act on known co-exposures to harmful chemicals from various sources (e.g. indoor air pollution, dust, food contact materials). Move from a single substance risk assessment to cumulative assessments for chemicals acting on the same adverse outcome and similar chemicals. Sweden and Denmark are looking at this issue in the context of their national work.
    • Respond more swiftly to early warning signals from new scientific findings about potential health or environmental damages in re-approvals and authorisations of substances. When concerns show up in one chemical use, a risk evaluation should automatically be triggered across legislative ‘silos’ to fully assess the impact of cumulative exposures and to ensure swift action in the absence of full scientific certainty.
  5. Speed up testing, screening and identification of EDCs
    • Update test requirements with new and updated screens and test methods in all relevant EU laws so that data gaps will be closed and EDCs can be identified. The EU should systematically make industry responsible for providing sufficient evidence to demonstrate safety.
    • Prioritise data collection on potential EDCs and draw up lists to communicate to consumers and business alike.
    • Improve the screening and testing guidelines used to identify EDCs and address data gaps.
  6. Work towards a clean ´Circular economy´ and a non-toxic environment: Avoid toxic substances such as EDCs in products from the start
    • Need to have full traceability to avoid finding EDCs in recycled materials.
    • Need to have producer responsibility. Each company should be obliged to inform consumers about the chemical content of their products, including the packaging.
    • Need to have the same level of protection from EDCs for primary and secondary materials, which means that when an EDC is banned from a virgin material, it should be banned from recycled materials as well, contrary to current practice.
  7. Enhance European market leadership for safer substitution with no regrets and promotion of innovative solutions
    • Support initiatives that guide companies to move away from EDCs. Some examples can be found at chemsec.org – market place, the ‘dating platform’ for companies trying to meet a provider of safer alternatives.
    • Limit and avoid the use of pesticides in agriculture and the management of green or urban areas and set specific targets for an overall reduction of pesticide use in line with the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive (2009/128/EC).
    • Encourage communication campaigns at a national level in order for citizens to be 1) more mindful about chemical use in their daily lives, in particular during pregnancy and with children, 2) to have the right to know about EDCs in products.
  8. Monitor the health and environmental effects of single, groups and mixtures of ED substances to capture all sources of EDC exposure ‘across the board’ and respond swiftly to minimise them
    • Ensure sufficient focus on investigating chemicals of new and emerging concern which are used as replacements for banned chemicals in the context of the EU Human Biomonitoring Initiative.
    • Develop sensitive test methods with new endpoints such as chemicals interfering with brain development and ensure they are appropriately considered within the regulatory evaluations.

EDC-Free Europe is a coalition of public interest groups representing more than 70 environmental, health, women’s and consumer groups across Europe who share a concern about hormone disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and their impact on our health and wildlife. Campaign partners include trade unions, consumers, public health and healthcare professionals, advocates for cancer prevention, environmentalists and women’s groups.

Reference. Image credit @EDCFree

The Lie about Glyphosate

Glyphosate must no longer be allowed on our fields nor in our foods

Toxic chemicals are working their way into your food, thanks to devious scheming by some big corporations. The EU can stop this.

  • Video published on 12 May 2016 by wemove.eu.
  • By the way, did you know that some vaccines and GMOs have more in common than many people realize? Read this post, October 13, 2015 by Joel Edwards.

Making safer chemicals : solutions to encourage alternatives

How to find and analyse alternatives in the authorisation process

Analysis by ChemSec and ClientEarth shows the chemicals approval process gives undue influence to companies producing dangerous chemicals and stifles information on safer alternatives, limiting the market for companies that produce them.

The main goal of the authorisation process is to promote the replacement of substances of very high concern (SVHC) with substances or technologies that are safer.

However, during the “stocktaking conference on authorisation” held in November 2017, it emerged that the authorisation process has not delivered its full potential. In particular, authorisations have been granted even when alternatives did exist, contrary to the requirements of REACH and having negative effects on alternative providers.

When an authorisation is granted under Article 60 despite the existence of a suitable alternative, it not only violates REACH, it also rewards the laggards and frustrates the frontrunners.

On the basis of the conference on authorisation, experience as observers in the socio-economic committee (SEAC) and extended exchanges with alternative providers, ChemSec and ClientEarth have identified two of the issues in the way SEAC operates, that prevent the authorisation process to fully deliver.

First, applicants do not always comply with their obligation to provide ECHA with accurate and comprehensive information on alternatives. The way to find existing alternatives has to be re-thought.

Second, SEAC does not use clear and appropriate criteria to assess the feasibility of suitable alternatives. The way that SEAC assesses the feasibility of alternatives needs to be improved.

This publication aims to explain the current challenges and recommend solutions that could be implemented without changing the existing regulatory framework.

Read the full report How to find and analyse alternatives in the Authorisation Process on chemsec and press release EU chemicals approval process stifles safer alternatives on clientearth.

Europeans will remain exposed to Bisphenol A in food packaging

MEPs reject ban on BPA in food packaging, Brussels, 11th January 2018

A European Commission proposal to regulate bisphenol A in food contact materials was discussed today in the European Parliament Environment Committee (ENVI). The Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) regrets that Members (MEPs) gave the green light to a piece of legislation that fails to protect citizens’ health and will mainly benefit the chemical industry.

The European Commission regulation foresees to simply lower the migration limit rather than ban bisphenol A in the coatings and varnishes used in food packaging. This contradicts the European Parliament’s own 2016 demand to fully ban bisphenol A from food contact materials [3].

Bisphenol A has been listed as a substance of very high concern (SVHC) by the European Chemicals Agency due to its endocrine disrupting properties , and it is also classified as toxic for reproduction. HEAL alongside numerous civil society groups have long demanded its full ban, because exposure to even very low doses can have serious long-term health impacts.

Commenting on the outcome of the vote, Natacha Cingotti, HEAL’s policy officer on health and chemicals, said:

“The adverse health effects of Bisphenol A, even at low doses, are so well documented that it should already have been banned from all consumer products a long time ago – citizens shouldn’t have to worry that their food wrapper or packing contains BPA and might seep into their food and harm their health.”

“European politicians are failing in their responsibility to protect people’s health and to act on their earlier commitments, although safer alternatives are available and some governments such as France and industry retailers are already on the path to substitution. It’s not only dangerous but also incoherent – we should be getting the toxics out of the economy if we want it to be truly circular.”

HEAL has repeatedly called on European decision-makers to take steps to fix the loopholes that currently exist in terms of the evaluation and regulation of chemicals in food packages, and will continue to promote more ambitious action to protect Europeans – in particular vulnerable groups – as a formal evaluation of the European legislation on food contact materials is about to start.

The Glyphosate Saga : Press conference, 27 September 2017

The Monsanto Papers : proof of scientific falsification

Video published on 18 Oct 2017 by Greens EFA.

Speakers:
Michèle RIVASI, Greens/EFA MEP
Kathryn FORGIE, Attorney / Avocate, Cabinet Andrus Wagstaff
Carey GILLAM, journalist, Research Director U.S. Right to Know

The Monsanto Papers, secret internal documents, have now been made public thanks to over 10,000 farmers who have taken Monsanto to court, accusing the company’s glyphosate weedkillers of causing them to develop a cancer called non-Hodgkins Lymphoma.

The documents reveal the various strategies and tactics used by Monsanto to ensure that they can sell their star product, RoundUp, despite the clear dangers for humans and for the environment.

Alternatives to pesticides

EU Parliament MEPs reject endocrine disrupters proposal

Identifying endocrine disruptors : Parliament blocks plans exempting some pesticides,
European Commission will have to come up with a new proposal without delay

Strasbourg : on 4th October, the European Parliament MEPs took a plenary vote – Objection pursuant to Rule 106: draft Commission regulation amending Annex II to Regulation (EC)1107/2009 by setting out scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties – and rejected the criteria to identify endocrine disruptors by 389 votes against and 235 for (majority at 376).

Substances having endocrine disrupting properties are substances that alter functions of the body’s endocrine (hormone) system and hence may have harmful effects on humans and wildlife.

EU Parliament Press Release

MEPs say that the Commission exceeded its mandate by proposing to exempt substances which are actually designed to attack an organism’s endocrine system, e.g. in pests, from the identification criteria.

Next steps

The objection, proposed by MEPs Jytte Guteland and Bas Eickhout, was approved by  389 votes to 235, with 70 abstentions, producing the absolute majority needed to block the proposal. The European Commission will therefore have to draft a new version of the text, taking into account Parliament’s input.

Quick Facts

EU legislation requires that pesticides or biocide substances have no endocrine-disrupting effects on other species than the ones targeted. To apply  this legislation, the EU needs a list of scientific criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors.

The Commission proposal related to the scientific criteria for identifying endocrine-disrupting properties of chemical substances. The identification of these scientific criteria is a first step towards measures reducing their presence and protecting citizens’ health.

The European Court of Justice ruled in December 2015 that the EU Commission had breached EU law by failing to publish criteria for determining endocrine disrupters due at the end of 2013. MEPs have repeatedly urged the EU to clamp down on the substances.

A UNEP/WHO report called endocrine disruptors a “global threat”, referring inter alia to the upward trends in many endocrine-related disorders in humans and wildlife populations. There is evidence of adverse reproductive effects (infertility, cancers, malformations) which could also affect thyroid function, brain function, obesity, metabolism, insulin and glucose homeostasis, it says.

  • Identifying endocrine disruptors: Parliament blocks plans exempting some pesticides, EU Press Room Ref.: 20171002IPR85122 Created: 04-10-2017 – 13:45
  • EU Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules on the making available on the market of CE marked fertilising products and amending Regulations (EC) No 1069/2009 and (EC) No 1107/2009 (COM(2016)0157 – C8-0123/2016 – 2016/0084(COD)), PE 599.728v02-00 A8-0270/2017.
  • EU MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION pursuant to Rule 106(2), (3) and (4)(c) of the Rules of Procedure, on the draft Commission regulation amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) 1107/2009 by setting out scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties (D048947/06 – 2017/2872(RSP)), PE611.468v01-00 B8-0542/2017.

Endocrine Society eager to collaborate with EU lawmakers on science-based regulations

Washington, DC – The Endocrine Society, the world’s largest organization of endocrinologists, welcomed the European Parliament vote Wednesday objecting to proposed criteria that would have failed to identify endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) currently causing harm to public health.

In the months leading up to the vote, the Society, whose members are scientists and physicians who specialize in researching and treating hormone health conditions, repeatedly expressed concerns the rejected criteria would not ensure a high level of health and environmental protection.

An EDC is a chemical or mixture of chemicals that can cause adverse health effects by interfering with hormones in the body. EDCs contribute to serious health problems such as diabetes, obesity, and neurodevelopmental and reproductive disorders. Scientific criteria to effectively and regulate EDCs are critical to ensure the health and wellbeing of the public for this and future generations.

There are more than 85,000 manufactured chemicals, of which thousands may be EDCs. EDCs are found in everyday products and throughout the environment.

The rejected criteria failed to support the latest scientific evidence. The proposal contained arbitrary exemptions for chemicals specifically designed to disrupt target insect endocrine systems that have similarities in humans and wildlife. The Endocrine Society, the European Society for Endocrinology, and the European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology previously released a statement strongly objecting to the addition of loopholes in the criteria as they create frameworks where potentially dangerous chemicals cannot be defined as EDCs by law.

New, science-based criteria need to be developed to maximize the ability to identify chemicals that pose a threat to human health. It will be critical for scientists with expertise in hormone biology and endocrine systems to be deeply involved in the processes to identify EDCs. The Endocrine Society’s experts are prepared to play a role providing scientific guidance on the development of effective criteria for identifying EDCs.

Vote to reject flawed EDC criteria creates opportunity to protect public health, endocrine news-room, October 04, 2017.

Endocrine Disruptors
An Investigation
  1. The Manufacture of a Lie.
  2. A Denial of the State of the Science.
  3. The Interference of the United States.
  4. The Discreet but Major Gift to the Pesticides Lobby.

EU ENVI Committee opposes endocrine disrupters proposal with 36 votes to 26

MEPs in European Parliament Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety adopted an objection to the EU Commission proposal for endocrine disruptors criteria

On 28 September, the ENVI Committee considered and voted Objection pursuant to Rule 106: endocrine disrupting properties – adopts rejection of endocrine disrupters criteria from EU Commission with 36 votes to 26.

Substances having endocrine disrupting properties are substances that alter functions of the body’s endocrine (hormone) system and hence may have harmful effects on humans and wildlife.

Plenary vote to take place next week

Endocrine Disruptors
An Investigation
  1. The Manufacture of a Lie.
  2. A Denial of the State of the Science.
  3. The Interference of the United States.
  4. The Discreet but Major Gift to the Pesticides Lobby.

Toxic Time Bombs

Decades of evidence point to the untoward health effects of endocrine disruptor exposures, yet little is being done to regulate the chemicals

Abstract

… “Although the U.S. has been slow to control endocrine disruptors, pressure is mounting for legislators to make significant regulatory changes in Europe, although the European Commission has also dragged its feet. In December 2015, the European Union’s Court of Justice decreed that the Commission had breached EU law by failing to adopt scientific criteria for identifying and regulating endocrine disruptors. The European Parliament met in February 2017 to consider a proposal defining those criteria, but member states decided to postpone a decision. France did not wait for the E.U. to take effective action. As of January 2015, new French legislation outlawed any contact between the known endocrine disruptor bisphenol A (BPA) and beverages or food.

The challenge to developing appropriate regulations for endocrine disruptors is that evidence from epidemiology for health effects is indirect and difficult to collect. Cancers abound in modern industrialized societies. Environmental factors are surely involved, yet hard to pinpoint. It took three decades to establish that DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane) and DES (diethylstilbestrol) impair health. Both are now strictly controlled, but their effects persist across generations.” …

  • Read Opinion: Toxic Time Bombs, by Robert Martin for The Scientist, September 25, 2017.
  • Featured image Portrait of Sir Edward Charles Dodds credit wikimedia.
More DES DiEthylStilbestrol Resources

Call on MEPs to protect us all from the real dangers of endocrine disruptors

Tell the Members of the European Parliament to put public health before corporate profits and ban harmful EDCs

Monsanto, Bayer, and BASF are about to score a major win by keeping toxic endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) that poison our health off the radar.

Recently, a majority of EU member countries accepted a European Commission legislative proposal on EDCs that would leave us vulnerable to these toxic substances — especially children and pregnant women most susceptible to EDCs.

Experts are slamming the proposal, which sets criteria for which chemicals get classified as EDCs. They say it sets the burden of proof of harm so high that most of these harmful chemicals will go unregulated.

Even more, this dangerous text is now in danger of becoming law throughout the EU.

But it’s not over yet. The Commission’s proposal must now be approved by the European Parliament on 3 October, which means there’s still time for our voices to be heard.

Call on MEPs to block the European Commission’s proposal to identify EDCs that leaves us vulnerable to unregulated chemicals.

EDC’s are linked to hormone-related cancers, birth defects, and other serious developmental disorders.

Besides requiring a level of proof to identify a chemical as an EDC that is way too high, the text proposed by the European Commission also foresees unacceptable exemptions. Moreover, it is limited to endocrine disruptors in pesticides and biocides, while these toxic substances hide everywhere –- from our cosmetics and food packaging, to medical devices used in hospitals.

Nearly half a million SumOfUs members and supporters of the EDC-Free Europe coalition have been standing up to the dangerous EU commission proposal on regulating these chemicals already.

It’s time to channel that same energy and remind MEPs from all over Europe that they should put the health and voices of citizens like you before the interests of Bayer and Monsanto lobbyists.

Call on the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to listen to the facts and reject the Commission’s dangerous proposal for endocrine disrupters.

While companies like Monsanto make money off of them, EDCs cost society an estimated 163 billion euros per year in Europe.

But the agrochemical industry is trying to drown out the voices of concerned scientists, public health experts and citizens, with an army of lobbyists in Brussels.

SumOfUs and EDC-Free Europe coalition members have already achieved major victories in the fight against toxic products in Europe. Because we keep coming together to take action, the renewal of toxic pesticides like glyphosate keeps being postponed.

Now, it’s time to pool our efforts once again to remind MEPs to put public health before the profits of Monsanto and Bayer.

We don’t have a moment to lose — the decisive vote will be held in Parliament in just a couple of weeks!

Tell our MEPs to prioritise citizens’ voices over corporate interests and to protect us all from the real dangers of endocrine disruptors.

Endocrine Disruptors
An Investigation
  1. The Manufacture of a Lie.
  2. A Denial of the State of the Science.
  3. The Interference of the United States.
  4. The Discreet but Major Gift to the Pesticides Lobby.

Reporting side effects of medicines

EU Medicines Agency‏ survey on safety of medications and reporting of adverse drug reactions

This EU Medicines Agency survey, will take approximately 5 to 10 minutes of your time to complete. It will help understand the awareness of patients/consumers and healthcare professionals regarding the need and the way they can report adverse drug reactions (side effects). The results will be analysed by the European Medicines Agency and a report containing summary information will be provided to the European Commission (DG SANTE) and will be further disseminated publicly.

EMA launches survey to assess whether patients and doctors are aware of the arrangements for reporting of side effects – European Medicines Agency, the European Union agency responsible for the evaluation and supervision of medicinesEMA_News/status/905720311445893120, 7 sept. 2017.